News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

Since the question of the so-called "validity" of Roman Holy Orders is to some degree, an open question within Orthodoxy, I was wondering exactly what the view of some of the Orthodox here was on the nature of the Roman Catholic Eucharist. Rather than poll based on the "validity" of the Roman Catholic Eucharist I felt like this would be more specific.

Does bread and wine remain bread and wine? Or is there a mysterious middle ground? Are we unable to know whether or not the Roman Catholic Eucharist is transformed?

The third option is intended to be strictly agnostic. The fourth option is loosely agnostic.

If you have any other option that I have not thought of, please, by all means post it.

Also, if you voted for either of the agnostic positions, I would like to know your personal opinion on the issue. I know of at least one Orthodox poster on another message board who crosses himself when passing a High Church Anglican Church or a Roman Catholic Church because he believes there is something fundamentally different about our Eucharist from the Protestants. Hence, even if you believe that it is impossible to know, which side do you feel is more correct, the affirmative or the negative. For example, I accept the Papal Bull concerning the validity of Anglican Orders, but I feel that if an Anglican Priest intends to offer the Holy Sacrifice, I cannot definitively say that the Holy Spirit ignores his call. I would also tend to think that if offered in true faith, charity, and hope, that it indeed becomes the Body and Blood of Christ - however, I do not hold it as a theological opinion.

I would prefer if Roman Catholics (or Byzantine Catholics or Coptic Catholics or what-have-you) would refrain from replying to this poll, as I was hoping for an Orthodox sampling, although I cannot prevent it. Oriental Orthodox responses are welcomed, though.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2010, 04:06:38 AM by WetCatechumen »

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

One, with the Orthodox view of the Eucharistic, the bread and wine change into the Body and blood of Christ and at the same time remain bread and wine. So if I voted for the first I would be implying that the second was false. (Orthodox do not teach transubstantiation.)

Two, with the Orthodox view of the mystery of the holy eucharist, it defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. The eucharist and Christ himself are a mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist is truly free from the earthly logic of fallen humanity. So I could vote for the third or fourth, but my personal opinion is not to judge the work of the Holy Spirit outside the Orthodox Church.

And three, although you did not ask, Orthodox Christians, do not abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches on the question of “validity", we abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches because of our acceptance of a doctrinal attitude and commitment that is specifically orthodox, grounded in the scriptures and spread through the ages under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches would undermine the very meaning of the sacrament. (This implies no particular judgment on the Eucharistic services of other Churches.) For us it acknowledges that Communion, and Divine Liturgy, is what the names imply. It is both the means and the end of Christian existence, an existence which arises from Orthodox faith, ongoing repentance, ascetic discipline, ecclesial identity, and works of love.

I voted for negative. I've understanded that Fathers (Cyprian, Augustine, Basil) and the practise to receive RC converts by baptism points to that direction that there isn't any sacraments outside of the Church. But then again I'm a neophyte with a little knowledge about anything.

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

I voted for negative. I've understanded that Fathers (Cyprian, Augustine, Basil) and the practise to receive RC converts by baptism points to that direction that there isn't any sacraments outside of the Church. But then again I'm a neophyte with a little knowledge about anything.

It would be interesting to get Fr. Ambrose view on the matter.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Since the question of the so-called "validity" of Roman Holy Orders is to some degree, an open question within Orthodoxy, I was wondering exactly what the view of some of the Orthodox here was on the nature of the Roman Catholic Eucharist. Rather than poll based on the "validity" of the Roman Catholic Eucharist I felt like this would be more specific.

This is a problem I keep trying to point out in dialogues with Western Christians, and yet I keep running into the same error. The problem is that you have confused what is generally meant by "validity" and the matter of efficacy. This is because predominant Western Christian theologians have speculated that if a rite has the valid form of the Christian Sacraments, then it must also have the substance of the Christian Sacraments via sanctifying grace. However, Eastern Christians do not agree with said assumption. Therefore, it is entirely possible for us to believe that heretics may have the proper form of the Christians Sacraments but not have the substance of them.

Given this, I will say that the issue is usually over the efficacy of Roman ordinations, not their validity. As to the Eucharist, my belief is that your Eucharist is valid but not efficacious.

Yes. But then again it also does in the Eucharist of the Church of Christ. Your thread is assuming transubstantiation. But many Eastern Christians do not. So the issue is simply over whether the Body and Blood of Christ become present, not whether the bread and wine remain. As to that, as I have already implied, I do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is in the Roman Eucharist.

A partial middle ground is the matter I established of certain rites having the proper form of the Christian Sacraments but not having their substance. The Roman rites meet this middle ground, yes. As to sanctifying efficacy, however? No, there can be no middle ground in that matter. A rite either has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace or it does not.

One, with the Orthodox view of the Eucharistic, the bread and wine change into the Body and blood of Christ and at the same time remain bread and wine. So if I voted for the first I would be implying that the second was false. (Orthodox do not teach transubstantiation.)

Do we not? Maybe we don't articulate our belief in the Real Presence with quite the Aristotelean detail found in the Latin definition of transubstantiation, but we do believe that the bread and wine become in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, which is the fundamental essence of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Two, with the Orthodox view of the mystery of the holy eucharist, it defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. The eucharist and Christ himself are a mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist is truly free from the earthly logic of fallen humanity. So I could vote for the third or fourth, but my personal opinion is not to judge the work of the Holy Spirit outside the Orthodox Church.

And three, although you did not ask, Orthodox Christians, do not abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches on the question of “validity", we abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches because of our acceptance of a doctrinal attitude and commitment that is specifically orthodox, grounded in the scriptures and spread through the ages under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches would undermine the very meaning of the sacrament. (This implies no particular judgment on the Eucharistic services of other Churches.) For us it acknowledges that Communion, and Divine Liturgy, is what the names imply. It is both the means and the end of Christian existence, an existence which arises from Orthodox faith, ongoing repentance, ascetic discipline, ecclesial identity, and works of love.

So really, it is not for me to know.

I agree with this, which is why I also voted other. I know that in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the Holy Spirit does indeed descend upon us and upon the gifts there offered and does indeed make them to be the Body and Blood of Christ. Whether the Holy Spirit also does this in the Catholic Mass I simply do not know.

One, with the Orthodox view of the Eucharistic, the bread and wine change into the Body and blood of Christ and at the same time remain bread and wine. So if I voted for the first I would be implying that the second was false. (Orthodox do not teach transubstantiation.)

Two, with the Orthodox view of the mystery of the holy eucharist, it defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. The eucharist and Christ himself are a mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist is truly free from the earthly logic of fallen humanity. So I could vote for the third or fourth, but my personal opinion is not to judge the work of the Holy Spirit outside the Orthodox Church.

And three, although you did not ask, Orthodox Christians, do not abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches on the question of “validity", we abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches because of our acceptance of a doctrinal attitude and commitment that is specifically orthodox, grounded in the scriptures and spread through the ages under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches would undermine the very meaning of the sacrament. (This implies no particular judgment on the Eucharistic services of other Churches.) For us it acknowledges that Communion, and Divine Liturgy, is what the names imply. It is both the means and the end of Christian existence, an existence which arises from Orthodox faith, ongoing repentance, ascetic discipline, ecclesial identity, and works of love.

So really, it is not for me to know.

The specific doctrine you just espoused is consubstantiation. I don't care if your Eastern theology doesn't have a name for it; Western theology does. It is a heresy held by some Anglicans and the Lutherans.

You said:

Quote

the bread and wine change into the Body and blood of Christ and at the same time remain bread and wine.

That is not an orthodox view. That is a heretical view.

Quote

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

This is from the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. It specifically condemns the heresy of Luther that the substance of bread and wine remain along with Body and Blood of Christ.

Listen, I know how strongly many Orthodox feel about "Roman heresies". I also know that you guys reject scholasticism. However, for Pete's sake, don't deny something just because we believe it.

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

The specific doctrine you just espoused is consubstantiation. I don't care if your Eastern theology doesn't have a name for it; Western theology does. It is a heresy held by some Anglicans and the Lutherans.

The Church Fathers speculate on various ways that the Eucharist "operates" - impanation, consubstantiation, transubstantiation. None of them are definitively taught. None of them are heresies. None of them carry the specific meanings of Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism. What is important for the Orthodox is to preserve the teaching of the reality of Christ's presence.

One Holy Father (and he is not alone) teaching consubstantiation is Saint Symeon the New Theologian. He teaches the commingling of the bread and the body, consubstantiation, or what some these days call the "incarnational approach" to the Eucharist. <smile>

"The grace of the Spirit, also called the fire of the Deity, belongs to ourGod and Savior by nature, essentially. But his Body does not have thesame origin, for it comes from the holy and all-pure flesh of the Theotokos,from her all-spotless blood. In assuming it from her, He made it into Hisown....Ever since then, the Son of God and of the All-pure imparts to thesaints, that which proceeds from the nature and the essence of hisco-eternal Father, the grace of the Spirit, that is, divinity; andfrom the nature and essence of her who really gave birth to Him, He givesthem the Flesh which He assumed from her."

"Forgiveness of sin and participation in life are bestowed on us not only inthe bread and wine of communion, but in the divinity which attends themand mysteriously mingles with them without confusion ...If Christ isGod, His holy flesh is no longer mere flesh, but flesh and God inseparableand yet without confusion visible in the flesh, that is, the bread, to thebodily eyes. In His divinity He is invisible to the eyes of the body but isperceived with the eyes of the soul."

The specific doctrine you just espoused is consubstantiation. I don't care if your Eastern theology doesn't have a name for it; Western theology does. It is a heresy held by some Anglicans and the Lutherans.

The Church Fathers speculate on various ways that the Eucharist "operates" - impanation, consubstantiation, transubstantiation. None of them are definitively taught. None of them are heresies. None of them carry the specific meanings of Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism. What is important for the Orthodox is to preserve the teaching of the reality of Christ's presence.

One Holy Father (and he is not alone) teaching consubstantiation is Saint Symeon the New Theologian. He teaches the commingling of the bread and the body, consubstantiation, or what some these days call the "incarnational approach" to the Eucharist. <smile>

"The grace of the Spirit, also called the fire of the Deity, belongs to ourGod and Savior by nature, essentially. But his Body does not have thesame origin, for it comes from the holy and all-pure flesh of the Theotokos,from her all-spotless blood. In assuming it from her, He made it into Hisown....Ever since then, the Son of God and of the All-pure imparts to thesaints, that which proceeds from the nature and the essence of hisco-eternal Father, the grace of the Spirit, that is, divinity; andfrom the nature and essence of her who really gave birth to Him, He givesthem the Flesh which He assumed from her."

"Forgiveness of sin and participation in life are bestowed on us not only inthe bread and wine of communion, but in the divinity which attends themand mysteriously mingles with them without confusion ...If Christ isGod, His holy flesh is no longer mere flesh, but flesh and God inseparableand yet without confusion visible in the flesh, that is, the bread, to thebodily eyes. In His divinity He is invisible to the eyes of the body but isperceived with the eyes of the soul."

Fr Ambrose

Father Ambrose,

Respectfully, consubstantiation is not the Orthodox faith. It is not the Catholic faith. It is not an Apostolic doctrine. Regardless of the fact that some Fathers can be shown to support consubstantiation after a fashion, I have quoted at least one Orthodox Synod which explicitly condemns the heresy of Luther.

In humility, I recognize that you indeed are much more educated in theology and patristics than me. I also acknowledge that you possess much more wisdom than I. However, on this I cannot waiver. The Council of Jerusalem, "Latin" though it may sound, was a legitimate expression of the Orthodox Faith. I've read the thread on Monachos.net, and the testimony of those who phoned their bishops over the issue was stark.

My honest feeling is that the vehement rejection of transubstantiation by modern Orthodox is reactionary against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. After all, many an Orthodox bishop in the past has been entirely willing to use the word.

I apologize if I seem unreasonable, or if I am in fact in error. However, the weight of the testimony of the Fathers, scripture, and past councils is overbearing. If you can quote me an Orthodox synod which states that the view that the bread and wine remain along with the Body and Blood of Christ, then I will accept that it is indeed Orthodox belief. If you can quote a pre-schism Ecumenical Council that calls consubstantiation a valid belief, then I will be forced to deny a dogma of my own faith. However, as for the Fathers, a brief glance at the ones we Catholics have cherry-picked indicate that a considerable number of them support the view that bread no longer remains.

- Paul

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

It matters very little to the Orthodox what theory is proposed to explain the change. In using the word "transubstantiation" the word is totally emptied of the underlying Aristotelian principles which make it an article of faith for Roman Catholics. The Confession of Dositheus to which you refer carries great weight in the Orthodox Churches and it is one of the "Symbolical Books" of Orthodoxy. All the same we cannot deny that there is no consensus among the Fathers as to the manner of the change and really they did not find this to be an important topic. And so today you find varying opinions among Orthodox theologians and as I mentioned "incarnational eucharistic theology" is known in some circles.... but we will not quarrel about this. We can live with varying opinions. We know that Christ is present. We do not know the how of it. It remains a mystery.

-oOo-

"On the Orthodox Faith" by St John of Damascus Chapter 13.

Concerning the holy and immaculate Mysteries of the Lord.

"The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood ofChrist (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself...

"Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us drawnear and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let usworship it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let usdraw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the formof the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us applyour eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order thatthe fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derivedfrom the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and thatwe may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire.Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire:in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but breadunited with divinity."

One, with the Orthodox view of the Eucharistic, the bread and wine change into the Body and blood of Christ and at the same time remain bread and wine. So if I voted for the first I would be implying that the second was false. (Orthodox do not teach transubstantiation.)

Two, with the Orthodox view of the mystery of the holy eucharist, it defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. The eucharist and Christ himself are a mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist is truly free from the earthly logic of fallen humanity. So I could vote for the third or fourth, but my personal opinion is not to judge the work of the Holy Spirit outside the Orthodox Church.

And three, although you did not ask, Orthodox Christians, do not abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches on the question of “validity", we abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches because of our acceptance of a doctrinal attitude and commitment that is specifically orthodox, grounded in the scriptures and spread through the ages under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches would undermine the very meaning of the sacrament. (This implies no particular judgment on the Eucharistic services of other Churches.) For us it acknowledges that Communion, and Divine Liturgy, is what the names imply. It is both the means and the end of Christian existence, an existence which arises from Orthodox faith, ongoing repentance, ascetic discipline, ecclesial identity, and works of love.

So really, it is not for me to know.

The specific doctrine you just espoused is consubstantiation. I don't care if your Eastern theology doesn't have a name for it; Western theology does. It is a heresy held by some Anglicans and the Lutherans.

You said:

Quote

the bread and wine change into the Body and blood of Christ and at the same time remain bread and wine.

That is not an orthodox view. That is a heretical view.

I think you have a misunderstanding about Orthodox teaching and Lutheran teaching.

The Lutheran teaching of consubstantiation is basically that there is bread and wine and there is the Body and Blood of Christ, but the bread and wine does not actually become the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Body and Blood of Christ, which is believed to be physically present, is not the bread and wine. This is just my understanding of it, I know there are former Lutherans here that will be more than happy to correct me if I'm wrong.

The Orthodox teaching, as I understand it, is that the bread and wine actually becomes the Body and Blood of Christ while remaining bread and wine, and that the Body and Blood of Christ (the actual Body and Blood) is the bread and wine. It's kind of similar to how two different natures can be fully united in one person whithout diminishing either nature.

Or in the words of John of Damascus

Quote

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.

I thought that I should check the text and it does not really say what you are saying. What it condemns is the Lutheran belief that the divinity is hypostatically united to the bread. The 1672 rejection hinges on the (supposed) claim to a hypostatic union.

Actually, to be fair to the Lutherans I don't think they have ever taught any hypostatic union of divinity with the bread.

One, with the Orthodox view of the Eucharistic, the bread and wine change into the Body and blood of Christ and at the same time remain bread and wine. So if I voted for the first I would be implying that the second was false. (Orthodox do not teach transubstantiation.)

Two, with the Orthodox view of the mystery of the holy eucharist, it defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. The eucharist and Christ himself are a mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist is truly free from the earthly logic of fallen humanity. So I could vote for the third or fourth, but my personal opinion is not to judge the work of the Holy Spirit outside the Orthodox Church.

And three, although you did not ask, Orthodox Christians, do not abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches on the question of “validity", we abstain form receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches because of our acceptance of a doctrinal attitude and commitment that is specifically orthodox, grounded in the scriptures and spread through the ages under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Receiving Communion at non Orthodox Churches would undermine the very meaning of the sacrament. (This implies no particular judgment on the Eucharistic services of other Churches.) For us it acknowledges that Communion, and Divine Liturgy, is what the names imply. It is both the means and the end of Christian existence, an existence which arises from Orthodox faith, ongoing repentance, ascetic discipline, ecclesial identity, and works of love.

So really, it is not for me to know.

The specific doctrine you just espoused is consubstantiation. I don't care if your Eastern theology doesn't have a name for it; Western theology does. It is a heresy held by some Anglicans and the Lutherans.

You said:

Quote

the bread and wine change into the Body and blood of Christ and at the same time remain bread and wine.

That is not an orthodox view. That is a heretical view.

Quote

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

This is from the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. It specifically condemns the heresy of Luther that the substance of bread and wine remain along with Body and Blood of Christ.

Listen, I know how strongly many Orthodox feel about "Roman heresies". I also know that you guys reject scholasticism. However, for Pete's sake, don't deny something just because we believe it.

That council has no authority in OOy and isn't even accepted by many EO. The decisions of Constantinople IV & V are both essentially binding. The decisions of the 1672 synod of Jerusalem are not, and there are significant numbers of EO who (partially) reject it as Latinizing.

Respectfully, consubstantiation is not the Orthodox faith. It is not the Catholic faith. It is not an Apostolic doctrine.

Who are you to so forcefully define the beliefs of the EOC?

And also, transubstantiation as you are espousing it is not an Apostolic doctrine either. All the "Apostolic doctrine" is is that after the consecration of the elements they are the Body and Blood of Christ. Neither "consubstantiation" nor transubstantiation are inherently supported in that.

You're free to share your opinion on the doctrine, but to think that you can go around saying what the beliefs of the EOC are in spite of evidence that that synod hasn't really been ratified is ridiculous.

My honest feeling is that the vehement rejection of transubstantiation by modern Orthodox is reactionary against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Actually, I reject it because the substantial annihilation of a substance is completely unprecedented in the history of our faith outside of said Scholastic doctrine, doesn't seem like the most legitimately sanctifying explanation of the Mystery (yeah, let's just destroy the bread and wine instead of making it holy like just about every other work of God in the Church), and just seems all around absurd to me.

I thought that I should check the text and it does not really say what you are saying. What it condemns is the Lutheran belief that the divinity is hypostatically united to the bread. The 1672 rejection hinges on the (supposed) claim to a hypostatic union.

Actually, to be fair to the Lutherans I don't think they have ever taught any hypostatic union of divinity with the bread.

Quote

In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Father Ambrose,

I cannot reconcile this with what you have said. The belief concerning the bread and wine is very explicit; the substance of bread and wine no longer remain. It is juxtaposed with the alleged belief of the Lutherans. Are you saying that this text from this synod only expresses a theologoumenon of the fathers of that particular synod, and that it is not put forth in direct opposition to the alleged belief of the Lutherans?

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Respectfully, consubstantiation is not the Orthodox faith. It is not the Catholic faith. It is not an Apostolic doctrine.

Who are you to so forcefully define the beliefs of the EOC?

And also, transubstantiation as you are espousing it is not an Apostolic doctrine either. All the "Apostolic doctrine" is is that after the consecration of the elements they are the Body and Blood of Christ. Neither "consubstantiation" nor transubstantiation are inherently supported in that.

You're free to share your opinion on the doctrine, but to think that you can go around saying what the beliefs of the EOC are in spite of evidence that that synod hasn't really been ratified is ridiculous.

My honest feeling is that the vehement rejection of transubstantiation by modern Orthodox is reactionary against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Actually, I reject it because the substantial annihilation of a substance is completely unprecedented in the history of our faith outside of said Scholastic doctrine, doesn't seem like the most legitimately sanctifying explanation of the Mystery (yeah, let's just destroy the bread and wine instead of making it holy like just about every other work of God in the Church), and just seems all around absurd to me.

The bread and wine are not destroyed. Their substance becomes something else. In that sense, all the physical aspects of bread and wine are there, but because they have been made holy, they cease to be merely bread and wine. The heresy is that mere bread and wine exist along with the Body of Christ.

It's a substantial transformation rather than a substantial annihilation.

I freely admit that I am not Eastern Orthodox. I am Roman Catholic. However, when I associated it with Catholic and Apostolic, it was clear that I was not speaking of the Eastern Orthodox alone. So far, nothing that has been posted has come close to convincing me that an Eastern Orthodox Christian may believe that the bread and wine remain. I have posted evidence from a single synod of the Orthodox Church. I also asked for others posters to do the same; instead I have received indirect references from the Fathers of the Church.

There is something extremely disturbing to me about this conversation. I apologize if I am being reactionary, but I had thought that this was something I shared with Eastern Orthodox and not with the Lutherans and Anglicans. The Lutherans and Anglicans believe that the bread and wine remain along with the Body and Blood. I cannot accept this - the Body and Blood is there in its own right, in the place of the bread and wine. If the Orthodox assertion is that the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood and continue to exist only insofar as they are the Body and Blood, I can accept that.

However, the idea that the bread and wine exist along with or beside the Body and Blood cannot be orthodox. Christ did not say, "This is my Body along with Bread". He said, "This is my Body."

EDIT: In addition, I sense that this is getting off topic. Would it be appropriate to split this thread? Or, rather, since this has been the primary topic of discussion, to re-purpose this thread for this discussion and I could open a new poll which would be termed as so not to conflict with the acceptance of consubstantiation by some Eastern Orthodox posters.

« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 01:31:29 AM by WetCatechumen »

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

as so not to conflict with the acceptance of consubstantiation by some Eastern Orthodox posters.

Dear WC,

I should be clear....

I do not believe in consubstantiation.

I do not believe in transubstantiation.

I do not believe in impanation.

Like the rest of Orthodoxy, I DO NOT KNOW.

The manner of what takes place is a mystery which God has not revealed to us.

Also, WC, by making a heresy of consubstantiation you are in effect making heretics of several of your own Church Fathers and at least one Pope.

Pope Saint Gelasius wrote an encyclical-"About the Two Natures." He was writing against Eutyches and Nestorius who taught that in the incarnation the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature.

Pope Gelasius wrote:

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."

Notice how clear he is with this teaching - the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to exist.

Again though I have to say that this is really not crucially important to the Orthodox. He may be right. He may be wrong. Of course by Catholic lights he is a Pope who taught what is now heresy.

'And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this IS My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this IS My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'- Matthew 26:26-28

The bread and wine does not remain bread and wine. It IS the flesh and blood of Christ.

The Eucharistic Mystery is found only in the one true Church. The Roman Catholic community is not that Church.

†IC XC††NI KA†

Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

From the popular work The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware [emphasis added] --

"As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after the consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the REALITY of the change, it has never attempted to explain the MANNER of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the nuetral term metaballo, to 'turn about', to 'change', to 'alter'.

"It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term 'transubstantiation' (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.

"Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed.

"Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts." (Timothy Ware, page 283-284)

From the book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism (1972) by the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of [London and] Aksum, Methodios Fouyas [emphasis added] --

"Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ." (Fouyas, page 187, footnote refers to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat 22; John of Damascus, De Fide Orth 4:13; John Chrysostom, Hom 82:4 in Matt as well as the Council of Trent, Session 13)

After quoting an Anglican writer who said "Orthodox theologians do not adhere to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation..." Fouyas responds:

"This is not quite accurate, because the Orthodox Church does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation,' but it does not attach to it the materialistic meaning which is given by the Latins. The Orthodox Church uses the word 'Transubstantiation' not to define the MANNER in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood of the Lord, but only to insist on the FACT that the Bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In this sense it is interpreted by St. John of Damascus [Holy and Immaculate Mysteries, Cap 13:7]." (Fouyas, page 188-189, footnote refers also to the Orthodox Councils of Jerusalem [1672] and of Constantinople [1727] -- see above)

Fouyas continues and provides several words used by the Orthodox to describe the change in the elements:

"In the same manner the majority of the Orthodox theologians used, for the idea of Transubstantiation, a Greek term drawn from the teaching of the ancient Greek Fathers; the terms used include Metousiosis, Metabole, Trope, Metapoiesis, etc, or the Slavonic Presushchestvlenie, equivalent of the Greek Metousiosis. The Slavonic word Sushchestvo corresponds not to substantia, but to ousia (essentia)." (Fouyas, page 189)

Fouyas concludes on the word Transubstantiation:

"The difference between Orthodox and Romans is this: the latter used this word to mean the special theory according to which the change is made, but the Orthodox used it to mean the FACT of the change, according to the Patristic conception." (Fouyas, page 189)

Finally, in a slightly more wordy description, from Byzantine Theology (1974) by the eminent Orthodox scholar and theologian, John Meyendorff --

"....in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the 'essence of God,' but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink....for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine 'energies.' Characteristically, one never finds the category of 'essence' (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like 'transubstantiation' (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as 'trans-elementation' (metastoicheiosis) or 're-ordination' (metarrhythmisis). [Yes, many of these terms were used, including and along with Transubstantiation].

"Transubstantiation (metousiosis) appears only in the writings of the -Latinophrones- of the thirteenth century, and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios; but, in his case as well, direct Latin influence is obvious. The Eucharist is neither a symbol to be 'contemplated' from outside nor an 'essence' distinct from humanity, but Jesus Himself, the risen Lord, 'made known through the breaking of bread' (Lk 24:35); Byzantine theologians rarely speculated beyond this realistic and soteriological affirmation of the Eucharistic presence as the glorified humanity of Christ."

Meyendorff says concerning the concept of "change of substance" in the Eucharist:

"The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance -- the Body of Christ -- but viewed this bread as the 'type' of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ." (from Meyendorff, pages 203-205)

From the popular work The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware [emphasis added] --

"As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after the consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the REALITY of the change, it has never attempted to explain the MANNER of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the nuetral term metaballo, to 'turn about', to 'change', to 'alter'.

"It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term 'transubstantiation' (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.

"Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed.

"Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts." (Timothy Ware, page 283-284)

From the book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism (1972) by the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of [London and] Aksum, Methodios Fouyas [emphasis added] --

"Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ." (Fouyas, page 187, footnote refers to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat 22; John of Damascus, De Fide Orth 4:13; John Chrysostom, Hom 82:4 in Matt as well as the Council of Trent, Session 13)

After quoting an Anglican writer who said "Orthodox theologians do not adhere to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation..." Fouyas responds:

"This is not quite accurate, because the Orthodox Church does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation,' but it does not attach to it the materialistic meaning which is given by the Latins. The Orthodox Church uses the word 'Transubstantiation' not to define the MANNER in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood of the Lord, but only to insist on the FACT that the Bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In this sense it is interpreted by St. John of Damascus [Holy and Immaculate Mysteries, Cap 13:7]." (Fouyas, page 188-189, footnote refers also to the Orthodox Councils of Jerusalem [1672] and of Constantinople [1727] -- see above)

Fouyas continues and provides several words used by the Orthodox to describe the change in the elements:

"In the same manner the majority of the Orthodox theologians used, for the idea of Transubstantiation, a Greek term drawn from the teaching of the ancient Greek Fathers; the terms used include Metousiosis, Metabole, Trope, Metapoiesis, etc, or the Slavonic Presushchestvlenie, equivalent of the Greek Metousiosis. The Slavonic word Sushchestvo corresponds not to substantia, but to ousia (essentia)." (Fouyas, page 189)

Fouyas concludes on the word Transubstantiation:

"The difference between Orthodox and Romans is this: the latter used this word to mean the special theory according to which the change is made, but the Orthodox used it to mean the FACT of the change, according to the Patristic conception." (Fouyas, page 189)

Finally, in a slightly more wordy description, from Byzantine Theology (1974) by the eminent Orthodox scholar and theologian, John Meyendorff --

"....in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the 'essence of God,' but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink....for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine 'energies.' Characteristically, one never finds the category of 'essence' (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like 'transubstantiation' (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as 'trans-elementation' (metastoicheiosis) or 're-ordination' (metarrhythmisis). [Yes, many of these terms were used, including and along with Transubstantiation].

"Transubstantiation (metousiosis) appears only in the writings of the -Latinophrones- of the thirteenth century, and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios; but, in his case as well, direct Latin influence is obvious. The Eucharist is neither a symbol to be 'contemplated' from outside nor an 'essence' distinct from humanity, but Jesus Himself, the risen Lord, 'made known through the breaking of bread' (Lk 24:35); Byzantine theologians rarely speculated beyond this realistic and soteriological affirmation of the Eucharistic presence as the glorified humanity of Christ."

Meyendorff says concerning the concept of "change of substance" in the Eucharist:

"The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance -- the Body of Christ -- but viewed this bread as the 'type' of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ." (from Meyendorff, pages 203-205)

So when you shake all of this out does Orthodoxy believe in a REAL presence or a TYPOLOGICAL presence as according to Meyendorff?

If Orthodoxy believes in a REAL and SUBSTANTIAL presence then the rest is academic.

Side note: The teaching of St. Thomas indicates that there is a REAL and SUBSTANTIAL presence of Jesus in Eucharist...and not a symbolic or typological presence, and the substance of the bread and wine are no longer what they once were. There is nothing in his teaching that addressed the MANNER of the change. That is mystery to the west.

Meyendorff says concerning the concept of "change of substance" in the Eucharist:

"The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance -- the Body of Christ -- but viewed this bread as the 'type' of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ." (from Meyendorff, pages 203-205)

So when you shake all of this out does Orthodoxy believe in a REAL presence or a TYPOLOGICAL presence as according to Meyendorff?

I think before you criticize Fr. Meyendorff for presenting a belief in a mere typological presence in the Eucharist you should read his works more carefully, both the quote to which you just replied and the larger works from which this quote was excerpted. The Orthodox have always believed in the Real Presence, which fact should be seen as setting the foundation for Fr. Meyendorff's statement regarding what the Byzantines have believed about the typological import of this mystery.

In the Roman Catholic Eucharist, I would say that nothing actually happens. From an EO point of view, I would say that no Eucharist outside the EO Church is actually changed, one reason why I don't think Orthodox should ever receive communion in non-Orthodox Churches.

I have to agree with this. It's almost as if they are looking for approval.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Personally, I think we are coming down way too hard on the term "transubstantiation." The short, simple answer is yes, we Orthodox do indeed believe in transubstantiation, in the sense that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are changed and transformed into something that they were not before, namely, the Body and Blood of Christ. As a former Lutheran, I think we are dancing dangerously close to consubstantiation here. The big difference between the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist and the Orthodox one is that the Lutherans do not believe in the actually transformation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Lutherans insist that the Bread and Wine remain and that the Body and Blood of Christ are merely added to them for the duration of the Holy Communion Service. This is why Lutheran churches, generally, have no tabernacles or the Reserved Sacrament in their churches: they do not believe such a thing is possible. For with the Lutherans, as soon as the Communion Service is over, the Body and Blood of Christ somehow magically vanish, and you are left with just bread and wine again. (But if you think about it, that makes sense according to the Lutheran way of thinking because they deny the sacramental change that is so crucial to an Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.)

I am really wondering if this reluctance to use the word "transubstantiation" among us Orthodox is some kind of Romaphobia that has developed? The Russian Orthodox Church in the past was not squeamish or reluctant to use this word to describe what we believe about the Eucharist. In the Catechism of Metropolitan Filaret, available here online:

I quote three questions from Filaret's Catechism here for all to ponder:

338. What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy?

The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament: Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered.

339. Why is this so essential?

Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ.

340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation T

In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable. (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)

So, in short, I would say that we believe in transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church. Period. But we do not have to explain it with scholastic-like precision. But to entirely reject the term seems rather reactionary to me.

And I'd hate to see Orthodoxy become some kind of High Church Lutheranism, teaching a "This is my Bread/Body, this is my Blood/Wine" that I encountered in Lutheranism.

Meyendorff says concerning the concept of "change of substance" in the Eucharist:

"The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance -- the Body of Christ -- but viewed this bread as the 'type' of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ." (from Meyendorff, pages 203-205)

So when you shake all of this out does Orthodoxy believe in a REAL presence or a TYPOLOGICAL presence as according to Meyendorff?

I think before you criticize Fr. Meyendorff for presenting a belief in a mere typological presence in the Eucharist you should read his works more carefully, both the quote to which you just replied and the larger works from which this quote was excerpted. The Orthodox have always believed in the Real Presence, which fact should be seen as setting the foundation for Fr. Meyendorff's statement regarding what the Byzantines have believed about the typological import of this mystery.

My thoughts precisely!! As long as there is real grace in Catholic sacraments, who cares what the Orthodox think!!

Indeed! As long as there is real grace in Orthodox sacraments, who cares what the Catholics think!!

IOW, if you Catholics want to believe that you receive the grace of God from your celebration of the Holy Eucharist, more power to you! No intent to insult, but it really shouldn't matter to us Orthodox one way or the other since we have access to the Holy Mysteries in our Church and have no need to go outside ourselves to receive them.

We can understand why our position, whether outright denial of Catholic sacraments or agnosticism, seems hurtful to Catholics, since the Catholic Church recognises the Churchness of the Orthodox, but understand where the Orthodox are coming from. They are only sure by faith that Orthodoxy is the Church; giving sacraments to somebody outside that visible Church is unthinkable to them, and equally unthinkable is receiving them from someone outside the visible Church.

We can understand why our position, whether outright denial of Catholic sacraments or agnosticism, seems hurtful to Catholics, since the Catholic Church recognises the Churchness of the Orthodox, but understand where the Orthodox are coming from. They are only sure by faith that Orthodoxy is the Church; giving sacraments to somebody outside that visible Church is unthinkable to them, and equally unthinkable is receiving them from someone outside the visible Church.

I'm less hurt than confused by the variance of opinions. This being, of course, the reason I started this poll in the first place. It's very nice to see someone actually say, "No, it is not the Body of Christ on your altar." It's a welcome change from the, "We're not sure whether or not you're a priest but some of us re-ordain some of you and some of us don't but some of us re-baptize you."

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

I'm less hurt than confused by the variance of opinions. This being, of course, the reason I started this poll in the first place. It's very nice to see someone actually say, "No, it is not the Body of Christ on your altar." It's a welcome change from the, "We're not sure whether or not you're a priest but some of us re-ordain some of you and some of us don't but some of us re-baptize you."

Dear WC,

With regard to the various ways for the reception of Roman Catholic converts, the Orthodox teaching has been summed up in the Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875.

Its bottom line recommendation is that the Church should tolerate the variations untila pan-Orthodox council comes to some decisions.

“Having considered in synod the matter under discussion, namely, the baptism ofthe Latins, that is, whether it can be regarded as valid or not, we saw clearly inthe historical facts and the ecclesiastical enactments of various times, that thismatter bears many pros and cons and has had many advocates and opponents,which certainly has not escaped Your Excellency. For even before the Schism,Patriarch Kerularios used to baptize the Latins who converted to Orthodoxy, as itis stated in the Pittakion which Humbert, the Exarch of Leo IX left on the Table ofSt. Sophia against Patriarch Michael, and from an epistle of this Patriarch to Patriarch Peter of Alexandria and from the fact that this act of Kerularios appearsto have found many imitators as time went on. Indeed the Lateran Synod of 1215criticized the Orthodox for re-baptizing the Latins, i.e. the converts from the LatinChurch.

After the Schism, however, we have, among the many others, MarkEugenikos, who pronounces that we should only anoint the Latins with Myrhon,and besides, there are synodical decisions, such as that summoned in 1207, andthat summoned in 1484 under Patriarch Symeon in which the other threePatriarchs were present, on which occasion the well known Acolouthy wascomposed, and also another one in 1600 summoned in the Royal city andanother one summoned in Moscow by Patriarch Ioasaph of Moscow in 1667 onwhich occasion two other Patriarchs from the East were present, Paisios ofAlexandria and Makarios of Antioch. All these declared that only with Myrhon(Chrism) should we perfect the converts from the Western Church.

On the other hand we have the Decision taken in Moscow in 1622 by Philaret Patriarch of Russia and the Horos which was issued under Cyril V, Patriarch ofConstantinople in 1755 and which became accepted by all the then Patriarchs,which indicates that they [the Latin converts] should be baptized.

Thus, the baptism of the Westerners, was sometimes regarded as valid, because it was done in the name of the Holy Trinity and was referred to the proper baptism, and sometimes as invalid, because of the many irregularities of form with which it wasclothed with the passage of time by the constantly increasing vain study of theWestern Church. Hence, the Most Holy Russian Church, taking its lead fromobvious reasons makes use of the Decisions of the newer Synod of Moscowunder Patriarch Ioasaph of Moscow, discerning that they are contributive to thebenefit of the Church in that place, whereas the Churches in the East consider itnecessary for the benefit of Orthodoxy to follow the Horos which had been issuedunder Cyril V.

Since these things happen to be such, it is left to the spiritualdiscernment of Your Excellency and of the rest of the Synodical members toaccept or reject the use of economy which another Church has upheld for morethan two centuries without wavering, if, as she writes, this economy implies manybenefits to the Church there and secures her from encroaching dangers.

Whenever, then, the local orthodox Churches might be able to gather together,then, with God’s help, the desired agreement on this subject will take place, aswith others as well."

Personally, I think we are coming down way too hard on the term "transubstantiation." The short, simple answer is yes, we Orthodox do indeed believe in transubstantiation, in the sense that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are changed and transformed into something that they were not before, namely, the Body and Blood of Christ. As a former Lutheran, I think we are dancing dangerously close to consubstantiation here. The big difference between the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist and the Orthodox one is that the Lutherans do not believe in the actually transformation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Lutherans insist that the Bread and Wine remain and that the Body and Blood of Christ are merely added to them for the duration of the Holy Communion Service. This is why Lutheran churches, generally, have no tabernacles or the Reserved Sacrament in their churches: they do not believe such a thing is possible. For with the Lutherans, as soon as the Communion Service is over, the Body and Blood of Christ somehow magically vanish, and you are left with just bread and wine again. (But if you think about it, that makes sense according to the Lutheran way of thinking because they deny the sacramental change that is so crucial to an Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.)

I am really wondering if this reluctance to use the word "transubstantiation" among us Orthodox is some kind of Romaphobia that has developed? The Russian Orthodox Church in the past was not squeamish or reluctant to use this word to describe what we believe about the Eucharist. In the Catechism of Metropolitan Filaret, available here online:

I quote three questions from Filaret's Catechism here for all to ponder:

338. What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy?

The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament: Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered.

339. Why is this so essential?

Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ.

340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation T

In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable. (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)

So, in short, I would say that we believe in transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church. Period. But we do not have to explain it with scholastic-like precision. But to entirely reject the term seems rather reactionary to me.

And I'd hate to see Orthodoxy become some kind of High Church Lutheranism, teaching a "This is my Bread/Body, this is my Blood/Wine" that I encountered in Lutheranism.

The educated Russians had to use "Latin terms". In those times Higher education was in Latin......the use of Russian was forbidden by the higher classes.

Also I don't think it's a fear of Rome that we are hesitant to fully embrace the full weight of the term Transubstantiation. I think our reasons is because we truly want to stay true to our own tradition.

One of the ecumenical councils used a different term, and so I think some may feel that to totally give in to the Roman usage would be a betrayal of the ecumenical council.

It's a long lecture, but in it he talks about the neutral or generic term used for change by one of the ecumenical councils. At another lecture ....I think in Detroit among mostly Orthodox, he uses the Latin term Transubstantiation alot. And so I think it has more to do with wanting to preserve our own tradition. For many centuries we were bombarded by both Roman Catholic and Protestant influences that we just want to take a step back and see what we really believe not just from a few centuries ago, but from the early centuries on up to now. What is our tradition? Our Faith? Our Practice? It's one thing to use Roman Catholic terms and arguments against protestants and protestant terms and arguments against Rome. But it is a totally different thing for us to make use of our own terms and arguments against both......Rome and protestantism.

Also I personally think it is unwise for us to totally embrace the full implications of the term Transubstantiation in the same way that Rome does because when one looks at the many church fathers and witnesses then one will see that they all weren't that strict with their language. I think the Orthodox position is the best position for we really are one with the ancient faith when it comes to this issue. And not only that, but we are also free to make use of the latter Latin term of Transubstantiation. And so we have the best of both worlds.

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 09:56:03 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

We can understand why our position, whether outright denial of Catholic sacraments or agnosticism, seems hurtful to Catholics, since the Catholic Church recognises the Churchness of the Orthodox, but understand where the Orthodox are coming from. They are only sure by faith that Orthodoxy is the Church; giving sacraments to somebody outside that visible Church is unthinkable to them, and equally unthinkable is receiving them from someone outside the visible Church.

I'm less hurt than confused by the variance of opinions. This being, of course, the reason I started this poll in the first place. It's very nice to see someone actually say, "No, it is not the Body of Christ on your altar." It's a welcome change from the, "We're not sure whether or not you're a priest but some of us re-ordain some of you and some of us don't but some of us re-baptize you."

Why do you want a uniform answer? I don't think you will find a uniform answer in regards to this issue. But officially what do the canons say about Roman Catholics communing at an Orthodox church if there are no Roman Catholic parishes around and vice versa?

This alone would of answered your question.

ICXC NIKA

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

My thoughts precisely!! As long as there is real grace in Catholic sacraments, who cares what the Orthodox think!!

M.

Indeed.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

WetCathecumen,I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."

Notice how clear he is with this teaching - the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to exist.

Again though I have to say that this is really not crucially important to the Orthodox. He may be right. He may be wrong. Of course by Catholic lights he is a Pope who taught what is now heresy.

Fr Ambrose

I wonder what he meant by "substance". Things are not always what they seem.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Was this meant as a general poll for everyone or a poll for just the Orthodox? I'm just wondering because I'm extremely surprised any Orthodox would vote "Yes".(I'm not wanting to start a fight/argument, just curious)

WetCathecumen,I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence(even though I personally like the synod). It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 12:13:03 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

WetCathecumen,I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence. It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious

ICXC NIKA

What's your point?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

WetCathecumen,I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence. It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious

ICXC NIKA

What's your point?

Other Orthodox Christians on this forum/thread already mentioned what our view is in regards to that synod. You can't just dismiss what they said about it.......especially when what they had to say was true.

To be honest, he didn't have to ask us this question. He could of just looked at the Canon Law between the Churches. That alone would have given him the answer.

There are Roman Catholics communing in Orthodox Churches in various parts of Russia because there are no Roman Catholic Parishes around. The same was true for some Orthodox immigrants in this country some many decades ago.

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 12:22:40 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

WetCathecumen,I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence. It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious

ICXC NIKA

What's your point?

Other Orthodox Christians on this forum/thread already mentioned what our view is in regards to that synod. You can't just dismiss what they said about.......especially when what they had to say was true.

ICXC NIKA

Look, just because many modern EOs interprate their faith in light of "that which is not Latin" does not mean that this was always the attitude of the EO Church. You know very well that the Synod of Jerusalem was considered dogmatic. If its is not longer so, then you have changed your faith.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

WetCathecumen,I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence. It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious

ICXC NIKA

What's your point?

Other Orthodox Christians on this forum/thread already mentioned what our view is in regards to that synod. You can't just dismiss what they said about.......especially when what they had to say was true.

ICXC NIKA

Look, just because many modern EOs interprate their faith in light of "that which is not Latin" does not mean that this was always the attitude of the EO Church. You know very well that the Synod of Jerusalem was considered dogmatic. If its is not longer so, then you have changed your faith.

I don't think you understand what dogmatic means in the Orthodox Church... We have only had 7 Ecumenical Councils (there are a couple that might also classify as Ecumenical), and therefore only those seven councils are "dogmatic" and universal. Whereas other synods/councils since then are not considered Ecumenical, though many have reinforced the Orthodox faith.

It is well known that at a point, the Greek Church was strongly influenced by the Latin West, at one time even offering indulgences. However, I'm sure as you know, one Church doesn't represent all of Orthodoxy. Even if one Synod/Council says something not quite so Orthodox, that doesn't mean the synod changed anything.

You know darn well that Orthodox have never (as a whole) endorsed transubstantiation, original sin etc... Even if our Bishops err and make mistakes, that doesn't mean squat because the whole Church hasn't agreed with them. The Church is balanced between the Bishops, the Clergy, the Monastics and the Laity. No one group has supreme power, and if one group errs, it's the job of the others to bring them back to the truth. Even if the Council of Jerusalem included all Bishops (or representatives of all Bishops), that still doesn't make it Ecumenical or universal. Same for the Robber Council of Florence. It had representations from nearly all Orthodox Churches, including prominent political members of the Eastern Empire. Yet it was a false council.

Again, just because a few Orthodox may recognize everything from the Council of Jerusalem, that doesn't mean it's ecumenical. What makes a Council Ecumenical is universal recognition of the Council and it's declarations/canons.

WetCathecumen,I advise you to be careful about the answers you seek on an EO forum. I have encountered two differing versions of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is Netodoxy, which one finds often in forums. Then there is real Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt that the EO Church really accepts constubstantiation as a viable view. This can be supported by the Orthodox synod that you cited.

That synod is known to be of a western Roman Catholic influence. It was written to denounce something "said" to be written by protestants of an Orthodox Christian / Patriarch who had a western Reformed protestant influence.

The western influences should be obvious

ICXC NIKA

What's your point?

Other Orthodox Christians on this forum/thread already mentioned what our view is in regards to that synod. You can't just dismiss what they said about.......especially when what they had to say was true.

ICXC NIKA

Look, just because many modern EOs interprate their faith in light of "that which is not Latin" does not mean that this was always the attitude of the EO Church. You know very well that the Synod of Jerusalem was considered dogmatic. If its is not longer so, then you have changed your faith.

That council was never put on the same level as the ecumenical councils.

You are starting to sound like the Prespyterians who jump on Anglicans for not embracing the Westminster Confession of Faith (produced under Oliver Cromwell's reign of terror). The 39 articles existed before the WCF, and like wise the Eucumenical councils existed before the Synod of Jerusalem!

A good portion of the educated Orthodox in those days went to Roman Catholic and Protestant schools. And so they started talking like protestants and Roman Catholics. But guess what? We aren't protestant nor are we Roman Catholic! We are Orthodox!

It's no different from the Roman Catholic scholars Raymond Brown and his buddy Joseph Fitzmyer sounding like protestants. They learned their stuff from protestant schools!

Yes we embrace a good chunk of that synod, because a good chunk agrees with what was always taught in the East. But you are saying that we can't disagree with any parts of it.....not even the parts that don't agree with what was always taught in the east and EARLY WEST.

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 12:37:09 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.